Search

A contractor could insert and independent liquidated damages clause in the subcontract to prevent the situation where a contractor cannot assess liquidated damages against its subcontractor unless liquidated damages are assessed by the owner. The case, Costello Construction of Maryland, Inc. v. J.D. Long Masonry is used to illustrate liquidated damages disputes.

Legal disputes may arise over project scheduling and coordination with projects involving multiple prime contractors and resolving this issue depend both on contract language and what the state law says about conflict between parties that are not in contractual privity. The case of the Everman's Electric Co. v. Evan Johnson & Sons Construction Inc. and W.G. Yates Construction Company Inc. is discussed as an example.

The trends of the interpretation of industrial contracts by justice officials in various cases are described.

Professional negligence and breach of contract case filed by Conopco Inc. on Allen & Hoshall Inc. for defects in floor design is presented.

Limitations on claims made against design professionals, that leads to the dismissal of lawsuits filed against them, are discussed.

A case overview of Harborview Office Center v. Camosy, Inc., involving defects during construction and remediation efforts, is presented.

The importance of the affidavit of merit (AOM) explained through the lawsuit, Murphy v. New Road Construction, in which, a construction worker, after sustaining injuries due a fall during time of work, sued architect firm, Cannon, on grounds of alleged negligence in the project. The plaintiff had not filed an AOM at that time.

The details pertaining to the legal case, involving Robust Construction LLC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with respect to the 'constructive acceleration' claim, are presented.

The details pertaining to the legal case, Dugan and Meyer Construction Co., Inc. v. State of Ohio, wherein, Dugan and Meyer had failed to provide a written request for a time extension to the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (ODAS), is presented.

The Guernsey & Co. v. United States is discussed. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have settled the claim with its contractor DCO Construction, Inc. by paying more than $716,000 for failure in the lateral design.

A legal case relating to liability of engineers for breaching 'implied' duties during a preproposal process in the case of a design/build approach, is presented. The legal case referred to is, Metropolitan Steel Industries, Inc. v. Perini Corp.

The licensure and expert testimony issues aroused in Thompson v. Gordon case are discussed. Corrine Thompson filed a case against the road design experts Jack E. Leisch & Associates and CH2M HILL, Inc., after a deadly road accident killed his two family members.

The subcontractor on a project has to look to the general contractor only, for payment and cannot sue the owners for the delay or defective drawings. Prime contractors and subcontractors work with each other to submit pass through claims to the owner, which is not a simple task.

BECO Construction alleged that J-U-B Engineers, Inc. for intentional interference in their public works contract. The court ruled that establishing the existence of a contract and the intentional interference are the formidable legal burdens that a party must take on to prove a tortious interference.

The URS Group, Inc v. Tetra Tech FW, Inc. case stemmed from the differing site condition that URS Group encountered during a soil remediation and foundation demolition project for Tetra Tech FW, Inc.,. The appellate court decided that including a small contingency in a bid does not preclude a contractor from making a differing site conditions claim when the subsurface conditions differ materially from what the contract indicated.

The Blaylock Grading Company v. Smith stems from the erroneous benchmark that Neil Smith Engineering specified in the design plan which prompted Blaylock to raise the elevation by importing fill. Blaylock sued for breach of contract and professional negligence while Smith sought to dismiss the claim on the basis of a limitation of a liability clause.

The State of Texas v. Mid-South Pavers case arose from the delays that Mid-South contends were caused by Texas' Department of Transportation refusal to allow lane closure. The case is notable because the judge saw merit in Mid-South's contractual right to ask for lane closures despite conditions attached to such closures.

Sheehan Co. sued McCrory Construction Co. to demand arbitration on extra work and contract claims. The trial court, and later the appeals court, decided to deny Sheehan's motion to vacate the award.

Bay West Inc. won a differing site conditions claim against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in connection with a dredging project near Guttenberg, Iowa. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decided that the rocks, riprap, and other debris found on the site amounted to much more than the type specified in the contract and endorsed Bay West's 'm easured mile' approach in measuring lost productivity.

Most state mechanicEs lien statutes consider engineering and architectural services as property improvements. Design professionals should first determine how courts interpret the right to file a lien before undertaking work in a state.

The appeal court's decision on a case between TA Operating Corporation and Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. regarding the payment of contract balance is discussed.

In the verdict of the case Turner Construction Company v. General Service Administration in the United States, the court has ruled to use a critical path method scheduling analysis to prove shop drawing approval delay.

The details of the case between Weseloh Family Limited Partnership vs. K.L. Construction Co. Inc. are presented. The case was on a design professional's liability to third parties for negligence of work quality as per the contract.

The civil infrastructure projects are using the dispute review boards (DRBS) as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The court found that although the DRB process was appropriate and fair for resolving disputes between the owner and the general contractor, it did not have the semblance of fairness in the context of a subcontractor's claim against the owner and general contractor.